Archive for DuPoint
Blind Faith; Jenkins Remains Loyal to Her Staff
Posted by: | CommentsI haven’t given much of a damn lately, and frankly, I am not sure that I do now. But, I did take the time to watch the latest televised DuPont city council meeting.
I had low expectations when watching the council meeting. So little ever really happens and the script repeats itself like syndicated reruns of old sitcoms. What once seemed important and relevant actually jumped the shark long ago.
One staple of the comedy in DuPont is the tired gag of watching Mayor Tamara Jenkins endlessly protect her staff from any criticism, warranted or not. Like a bizarro helicopter mom, Jenkins ceaselessly defends her staff with borderline obsessive tendencies. They are not different, they are special, and we are reminded; masking their obvious handicaps and dysfunction.
This charade has gone on long enough. There is plenty to be critical of, just like they is plenty to be praise worthy. The point is that just let them stand on their own. When someone is so defensive of someone or something, it tends to suggest to me that maybe there is something being hidden from view. For 2011, I would like to suggest a neutral stance on city staff. We promise not to criticize their work so long as you, Mayor Jenkins, promise not to offer any praise for them either. After all, they work for the city, they don’t actually live here. They do not have to live with their decisions — we do.
You can see that a nerve was struck when it comes to the subject of “Land Use” was raised. There is good reason for that. The current process is cumbersome and doesn’t exactly favor the citizens. We are told, yet again, that perhaps the code needs to be revised. A familiar refrain since all our code seems to need revision. Look no further than the sign ordinance that is approaching its one year anniversary of being addressed. One year and now with a hired gun to help change it because our supercalifragilisticexpialidocious staff has done such an efficient job of getting it fixed so far.
But remember, this is not a criticism, just an observation. Staff is fantastic, really, they are.
This is a sucker bet because I know that Mayor Jenkins cannot hold up her end of the bargain, the praise of her emotionally fragile staff will continue. The mayor has to be liked. In fact, her need to be liked is greater than her need to be perceived as a leader.
There is too much riding on the future land use issues to continue mindlessly defending her staff. The First Industrial development is pivotal to the future of DuPont because it will determine our tax base for decades to come and we only have one opportunity to get it right. One opportunity to determine if the tax burden will continue to be shouldered by the home owners or if sane development will prevail.
My advice to the mayor is to take a step back and ask herself why her staff may have this perception where they are being questioned. Could it be their crappy communication? Could it be their lack of outwardly apparent accomplishments (sign code, anyone?). Or, will all of this debate regarding our land use codes and the conduct of her staff be decided in a forum the mayor will hold little sway and influence?
It shouldn’t have to come to that but it might.
If I Wanted To Hear From Larry Wilcox I Would Have Farted
Posted by: | CommentsHave I got your attention? Is it even possible to create any outrage with a headline in a town where a member of the city council becomes unhinged at what appears to be innocuous comments?
Larry Wilcox decided to get low, playing handball against a curb low, and cried out “This is bullshit!” during the last council meeting’s public comment portion of the agenda.
Yeah. That’s right. I said Councilman Larry Wilcox is an asshole. Bear in mind that this is only a portion of the nonsense he spewed last Tuesday evening, wait until you see the part where he paints his critics as Pontius Pilate.
The fact that councilman Wilcox is not bound by the same rules of courtesy during public comment isn’t only mind numbing, it also compounds the angst. Where was the authority of Mayor Jenkins during this episode? Why was Larry Wilcox not gaveled down? Why did the entire council sit mute and not demand an apology on behalf of a citizen who participated in their public speaking charade?
In sports, you often hear about a coach who loses his locker room. It implies that the coach no longer has a position of impact and authority over the players. In the case of DuPont, Mayor Jenkins as lost the council. The muttering of citizens around town about the mayor is similar in tone; the respect has sharply faded. The whole meeting you can see signs of this but the refusal of Larry Wilcox to control himself here is the most egregious example. Watch closely as the mayor tries to get the meeting back on track, powerless; bargaining with Wilcox that she will be the arbiter of “personal” attacks.
Just what is a “personal” attack, anyway? I was raised in Detroit where, if there is a personal attack, someone is going to the hospital and someone else is going to jail. Here, some former PTSA volunteer, den mother, and Kiwanis member will convene a committee meeting and show the offending party a piece of paper asking them to play nice or leave the sandbox.
In June 2009, Larry made one of his classic stump speeches to “TV Land” about the importance of citizens getting involved, even if it means delivering the hard message council may not want to hear. Now we have confirmation of what we suspected all along: Larry Wilcox doesn’t believe a single word that comes out of his own mouth.
Is this mic on? Hello? Hello? Uh, what agenda item are we on? Sound Transit? I meant to say Pierce Transit. We have the best staff in the whole state.
I was clued onto this sad episode the night that it occurred. I received a flurry of email messages stating that I needed to view the rebroadcast of the meeting to see for myself. Others used flowery language to describe the exchange. Not one person who contacted me had anything favorable to say about Councilman Wilcox. Sure, maybe these people were pushing their own agenda, but the transcript speaks for itself.
At this point there exists only one play for the city to run from scrimmage. No, it isn’t to demand the resignation of Wilcox. He is completely devoid of introspection and self consciousness; thereby it would be impossible for him to acknowledge his transgression against the people of DuPont enough to do anything remotely close to honorable. It would take a team of therapists, and perhaps a neurologist to enable that kind of break through discovery. Actually, I think the city should be held accountable and they should immediately and publicly apologize. The mayor, Larry Wilcox, and all the other muted and cowardly council members who were in attendance owe the citizens of DuPont, and Mr. Dresser in particular, an apology and acknowledge that they are elected servants of the people of this town. If a citizen cannot approach their government and voice concern, state observations, or seek redress without the confidence that their opinions are valued, then they have failed at the very foundation of governance.
Larry Wilcox’s behavior was terrible, but the ineptitude of the mayor and the lack of a response from council was in many ways worse. Much worse. It does clearly illustrate, however, that if everyone is going in a different direction then we are going nowhere.
DuPont is exactly where it needs to be and that is the tragedy.
Superpowers
Posted by: | CommentsThe crosswalk discussion carried on to the second public comment section of the televised council meeting a couple of weeks ago. If you remember, there was a request anew for crosswalks on McNeil at Jensen and McNeil at Garry Oaks. It received the official City of DuPont lip service. Penny Coffey asked Peter Zahn to chime in on some off-the-top-of-his-head criteria for crosswalks. This is where Peter Zahn fell flat, citing some non-existent guideline that crosswalks are typically placed near controlled stop areas.
I guess Mr. Zahn is unaware of the crosswalks from the tanning salon to the new nail shop.
OK, OK, that is private property, but there was a swift backlash where numerous examples of crosswalks violating our Public Works director’s definition.
In the 1970s there was a commercial tag line that said “Don’t mess with mother nature.” In our case, I think it is more appropriate to say Don’t mess with stay at home moms.
Or, supermoms. However, it is not how you might perceive them to be. We are not talking about moms who are sitting around the house watching Jerry Springer interspersed with commercials for some career academy. The supermom has a very specific task in cities like DuPont Washington that council would be wise to take heed.
The numerous stay-at-home moms in DuPont are the eyes and ears of our community. They are our first responders for things that may not seem just right; and certainly they are the early warning system when it comes to the community children’s safety. These are not the supermoms of yore, like the recently departed Barbara Billingsly, more affectionately known as Mrs. Cleaver. No, the 21st Century supermom is active and in the parks and streets and coffeeshops. They are networked, they are texting, they are on Facebook; and they are not talking about which detergent keeps whites white or colors bright. They are talking about the van parked over there; that house with that dog over here; or that cars do not yield next to their tot lot.
The school bus arrives and their second day begins.
The council, mayor, and city staff would be wise to listen to the mother who is motivated enough to bring an issue to them at a council meeting. These moms have a tremendous amount of clout and their word can spread fast. They are at the forefront of making the family decision to live in DuPont because of the benefit it provides to their family. Remove that benefit, or the perception of that benefit, and we are doomed. Suddenly, they are telling their friends who are transferring from Benning, Bragg, or Bliss that DuPont isn’t as good as it used to be, or, DuPont is over rated and over priced.
Professional marketing can’t hold a candle to their word of mouth.
If you have followed this issue you can rightly conclude that the city leadership tried to play these women as fools. That is a tactical mistake. It is bad business to piss off your core customers and spewing some jive about needing some traffic control is insulting. If you don’t know, then say you don’t know. But, you better give a date when you will know.
Our Den Mother mayor is reluctant to do much more than make s’mores with her staff. Perhaps it is time roll up the sleeves and accomplishes something, no matter how minor it may seem to council. The tracking sheet is a joke. Blue ribbon committees do not equate to accomplishments. Hollow accolades about how “awesome” or “phenomenal” our well paid city staff are means nothing to a citizen who is left wanting. You cannot request a simple code enforcement in this town without convening a constitutional congress and an audience with the pope.
When you don’t know what you are doing, then nothing is easy.
I admit, I am a bit envious of how these mom’s banded together to thoughtfully, articulately, and civilly state their case. They are better than me in that regard. I would like to offer them a word of advice, though. Don’t bother confederating with Larry Wilcox. I believe he is sincere in wanting to help but the fact of the matter is that he is powerless to influence your cause. You will have to work with Dawn Masko. At the end of the day, it will take a recommendation from City Hall staff to get the crosswalk installed. City Council is just the potted plant that will approve the funds; and they seldom vote against a recommendation from city staff.
And, if they don’t listen to your concerns then I am afraid we are not as good as we used to be as well as overrated and over priced. We will be like any other off base community in 10 years at our current rate.
Not One Penny But Several
Posted by: | CommentsThere was a lengthy status update on the “Global War on Terror” memorial at the last DuPont Washington city council meeting. The update was a head scratcher for a couple of reasons, but when you have the long winded Peter Zahn and the Alzheimer’s candidate Larry Wilcox presenting information, then brevity goes out the window with reason and articulation.
The first question that can be reasonably asked is whether this is a city project or a private project. The materials around town; fliers at local businesses, advertising in the Home Town Clipper, suggest that the War Memorial is a citizen project, and it is…sort of. According to Mayor Jenkins, it is a “community project” with the “funding donations and project payments have been managed by the City.” Curiously, the city stepped up to handle the financial aspect due to concerns over timing as the project leads marched toward Veteran’s Day. While this Veteran’s Day may seem logical, it is no more appropriate that a dedication set for Memorial Day, or the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, or even Veteran’s Day, 2011, which would have had the once a century 11/11/11 date to etch into stone. Nonetheless, the decision was made and the city would do what they do best: hold the purse strings.
Also curious is that the mayor mentioned that this project was being conducted similar to other “community” projects. Perhaps someone can jog my memory, but when was the last time we had a community project where they collected such a vast sum with citizen fundraisers for something that will be given back to the city once complete? I mean, if the checks were made payable to the “City of DuPont” then wouldn’t it be the city’s project all along? Take into account that the city has been lending city personnel to help manage this project and maybe you will also conclude that there isn’t much “community” in the project at all. Think about it: Checks written to the city, a city councilman championing the effort with twice monthly updates, city staff time to oversee the project construction, and city-approved vendor and bid processes for materials.
If that isn’t oblique and confusing enough, let us return back to the comments continually made by Larry Wilcox on behalf of the city. Time in and time out, Councilman Wilcox claims that they city is not paying anything for this project. Really? Then perhaps the city can explain how the supervisory roles are being funded? Or, why in the myriad of Thank You’s Mr. Wilcox rattles off the names of city employees?
I exchanged a few emails with City Administrator Dawn Masko and Mayor Jenkins on the matter. I got the standard DuPont issued, passive-aggressive, boilerplate gobbledeegoo; where the city begrudgingly admitted that there is some city staff time being utilized on the project, but again, only to facilitate this artificial deadline. The point I asked our dynamic duo, but did not get answered, is if they knew that Councilman Wilcox’s statements were false, then why did they choose to remain silent on the matter and not correct his misstatement? They obviously had several opportunities to take him aside privately and say, “Larry, cool it with this no cost to the city business, we are using staff time on the project. Use softer phrases like ‘minimal cost’ or ’staff time’ to downplay the dollars spent by city hall.”
Dawn and Tamara chose not to do that, however. They let Larry loose like a crazy uncle at Thanksgiving. Charming, except for the fact that Larry wasn’t talking to the TV, but rather he was talking from it. And for a brief moment, I felt sorry for Larry speaking the equivalent of walking around with toilet paper on his shoe. Perhaps they were hoping for some self awareness from Wilcox, instead they got the humdinger that the project burden to the city of DuPont is “not a penny!”
What appears to escape Councilman Wilcox is that staff time is also money in the eyes of the taxpayer. The mayor and city administrator made zero mention of staff time being reimbursed by donations, so one can only conclude that it was on the city’s nickel that they participated in the project. Now that we are at budget season, and we are bludgeoned over the head with what we cannot have in this town, perhaps we can question whether we are overstaffed in certain areas. Is public works so flush with supervision that Peter Zahn can project manage some construction for a memorial? What? No trails need maintenance? No signage needs repair? How about Bill Kingman? When not working on the SMP, or mine expansion, I guess he is working through his lunch for whatever Larry thanked him for in the video.
I am also perplexed by the reaction of Dawn Masko and Mayor Jenkins. Why let Larry keep extolling the lack of cost? I asked our leaders, not quite rhetorically, whether these statements are attributable to Larry Wilcox being a liar or ignorant. Neither Dawn nor Tamara seemed too concerned at letting Larry be Larry, or in other words, blather on without any self consciousness.
Here is a portion of the response I got from the mayor:
Lets revisit a snapshot how this project came about. More than one citizen and elected wanted to see a community memorial capturing the time period we are in. The project that is being worked on now was brought forward to council. Council and I gave a thumbs up that this would be a good community project. The project started it’s momentum approximately a year ago with updates along the way. The funding donations and project payments have been managed by the City because of timing. We collectivly made that choice as the most effective and efficient process in order to deliver the project on time.
(I hate the term ‘elected’ as a noun. It is pretentious shorthand for elected official. It is not in the dictionary)
First of all, I do not need a reminder of how this whole thing started, I have the video. Reading this statement will have you conclude that the only reason the city is involved is because of the schedule. It also suggests that the thumbs up were to proceed with the full project, yet the video tells a different tale. The question I have for the city is when did council vote to approve funds, or in this case, the use of city staff, to support this community project? I have reviewed the council meeting minutes online and there is nothing more than an occasional update on the progress of the project. The level of the city involvement was never recorded. The project also does not appear in the budget for this year. There is no record that the city planning agency was consulted on the matter. The Parks and Recreation agency was not involved in this project until August, 2010.
People are free to debate the merit of the project; that is not what I am writing about. I am concerned with our council’s casual approval of this project. Do you get the impression the council rubber stamped this without asking about cost because it was implied that it would not involve city personnel? For this, the blame land squarely on the shoulders of Mayor Jenkins. At some point between January and October this project morphed into something bigger than intended. It was her responsibility to either get it back on track or update the citizens. It appears neither happened.
It is no mystery that Tamara Jenkins gets the vapors when anything to do with JBLM is mentioned. She throws around the lingo with in-the-know abandon. Too bad at these moments she forgets she was elected to represent the rest of DuPont. Yes, yes, we know. You love the military. You really love the military. We can all form a line in fawning over JBLM behind you. But, at some point, you have to justify the actions of city hall. I just don’t see that happening.
Here is the rest of the email exchange the mayor and I had over this matter.
10/13/10 7:13 AM
Tamara,
You fell off this distribution but I feel you need to be pulled back in. Ms Masko states that the city is shouldering some of the expense to this memorial. The reasons why can be debated but that is not the point here. I am more concerned with the complete lack of transparency on the amount of time and money being spent by the city.
Larry Wilcox has pretty much claimed from the beginning that the city bears no burden for this project. That is factually incorrect. Please review to the following link for confirmation of this statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vny0Ub-Vqic
As you can see, Larry is emphatic in his claims of city burden yet no one, not you, nor council, nor Dawn Masko make any attempt to correct his latest misstatement.
There needs to be full disclosure to the citizens on what our past, current, and future costs are for this project. There also needs to be better communication since the project lead, even as recently as last week, did not understand why this is a “city project” even though private funds were being utilized.
Received: 10/13/10 09:21 AM
Mike, you are correct that city funds were used in terms of staff salary. Permitting, inspection, finance management, staffing the parks and recreation agency and coordination takes staff time. Similar to other projects which are submitted to the city.
Lets revisit a snapshot how this project came about. More than one citizen and elected wanted to see a community memorial capturing the time period we are in. The project that is being worked on now was brought forward to council. Council and I gave a thumbs up that this would be a good community project. The project started it’s momentum approximately a year ago with updates along the way. The funding donations and project payments have been managed by the City because of timing. We collectivly made that choice as the most effective and efficient process in order to deliver the project on time.
The community project has been treated similar to other submitted projects which requires park and rec process and permitting. The cost to design and build the project is by donations.
Kind regards,
Tamara
10/13/10 11:01 AM
Tamara,
You have failed to address a very important part of the email sent to you. The cost has been downplayed by Larry Wilcox while the rest of council, you as mayor, and city staff sits in silence when this obviously false assertion is made over and over again.
I am not debating the merit of project. I have questions of the timing and urgency in a self proclaimed cash strapped city, but I am also not inquiring about that.
I am sorry, but I disagree with you that this is being run similar to other projects. In the case of other city projects, cost to the city is at the fore of the discussion. Here, it is trivialized and dismissed. Why?
As you may recall, more than one citizen and “elected” were proponents for a skate park. As citizens, we never heard the end of the cost to the city. Similar funding concerns are also brought up when speaking to work around the creek. In the case of the memorial it is a different story.
I suspect that the memorial project has a fair amount of scope creep in play. There is an artificial rush to dedicate this project by Veterans Day. If I am reading Ms Masko’s email correctly, in order to
facilitate this launch date, more interaction was required by the city. That translates into cost. When you mention that a “thumbs” up was given to this project by yourself and council, I somehow missed the part where you were approving undisclosed city funds to the project. What was that amount again? Or, at least direct me to the meeting documentation of the specific funds council blindly approved.
Please do not confuse the merits of the project versus the execution of the project. Even Phil Courts needed clarification on the city’s role.
Let’s start talking in terms of dollars and cents when it comes to the city involvement. Are we cash strapped or not? If the labor is billable to the general fund then I am sure more than one citizen
would share their misgivings.
Be transparent in the council update on this matter and stop brushing aside the city’s financial burden, even if it minimal. Larry Wilcox is either a liar or ignorant when he proclaims the city is paying for
“hardly anything” for the project. Which is he?
Received: 10/13/10 11:01 AM
Thank you, Mike, for sharing your prospective. The administration will re-emphasize the cost to the city thru staff time at the next regular council meeting. I would imagine the discussion will also come up during the budget workshops.
Tamara
If past history is our guide, I doubt Mayor Jenkins will provide the full amount of this project.
Penny Lane
Posted by: | CommentsI have to say that I do not think I have ever seen balls as big as those that were on display during the last televised Dupont City Council meeting.
It is easy to single out Larry Wilcox for his public despairing of the three hour a week workload, or such demands of the “study” sessions. Nevermind that the council would be “studying” the misinformation provided by the handsomely paid City Hall Staff. Thanks to a RealDuPont reader for bothering to Google the MUTCD and to provide the link to the object in question.
But the “Taking-the-cake-and-letting-us-eat-cake-too” award has to go to deputy mayor and council veteran, Penny Coffey. Ms. Coffey laments the lack of meeting time to tackle the crosswalk issue with such a packed tracking list. Of course, this is a mere three months after she pushed to call off the August 24, 2010 council meeting so that staff, and in this case, gal pal Dawn Masko, could have the week off as part of her scheduled vacation.
Bravo, Penny. Take a bow.
The Long and Winding Road
Posted by: | CommentsSome issues in the city of DuPont are like Halley’s comet, then seem to reappear over and over again.
At the last DuPont City Council meeting there is interest anew at putting in crosswalks on McNeil. Hmmm, where have I heard that before?
Not Exactly Abbey Road But…
Lest you think that council is completely inaccessible other than logging in your three minute commentary at bi-monthly council meetings, Deputy Mayor Penny Coffey raised an important issue to several residents in the Yehle and Hoffman Hill areas. What is important to note is that she did so after receiving email on the matter (from me) and speaking to a resident at a gathering.
The city is overdue on placing a crosswalk at McNeil at Garry Oaks for the seniors of Patriots Landing (to a lesser exent at Jensen). It also offers an opportunity to be proactive. Besides, how much process and analysis is needed to paint some zebra stripes on the ground? Perhaps their reluctance to get right on it is because to do so would acknowledge that McNeil has turned into a really busy street.
The loop road is long overdue to those living back yonder, and I can honestly say I look forward to that addition to town more than a market or McDonalds in 2009, but in the meantime we could use some attention of McNeil.
In the high anxiety environments of budgets and levies, it is important to remember some of the small stuff that makes us tick.
Welcome back to 2010.
I wrote the blog post Not Exactly Abbey Road But... in 2008 (note that the video was taken in old city hall). Two years and still no crosswalks on McNeil. The city is broke, don’t ya know. Ask the mayor and she will tell you that we just don’t have the money to address citizen concerns on matters of safety. Not a penny to spare…unless it is on:
- A survey that bears no actionable results
- Council retreats where council paid to learn how to become effective
- Repairing select citizen sidewalks in Palisade Village in violation of DuPont Municipal Code
- Throwing an annual party for the military
- Pay increases to salaried employees in a severe recession yet with zero measureable inflation
- Per diem for the past several years to a “temporary” police and fire chief
- Providing free labor to build a privately funded War Memorial
Not to mention neglecting to collect permit fees from A-Frame sign adverstisers cluttering our streets.
Feel free to pile on with your specific, neighborhood complaint; but just remember that the line for head shaking dissatisfaction forms behind me.
Reigniting the Fire Service Debate
Posted by: | CommentsIt has been over a year since we thought much about fire service. But this story has been spreading like, well, like wildfire.
Bloggers, pundits, and various talking heads of every stripe seem to have an opinion on the matter. However, it got me to thinking about our own fire service issues in DuPont.
What if DuPont entered into such an agreement with a larger, neighboring community, say Lakewood? After all, we have only had one house fire in recent memory and most of our houses have sprinklers. Based on the rhetoric from the last two failed levy attempts it certainly had to be considered by some of the opponents of the $1/1000 rate that was last proposed.
But with one house fire in the ten plus years that I have been here, the idea of a subscription fire service certainly makes the mind wander. How much would the $75 fee equate in terms of a levy in DuPont? Well, if we continue to assume a median value of $250,000 then that would be equivalent of a levy rate of $0.30/$1000 assessed value.
Of course, both DuPont and Lakewood’s fire department were boasting much more than dousing water on a trailer. They spoke of ALS, brush fire capabilities, and who can forget water rescue? You also need to consider the car fires and the incidences that do not require anything more than dealing with a smoky pan on the stove and resetting the smoke detector. But, do we need all that level of service, or more importantly, would we be willing to pay for it?
The DuPont fire levies felt more like someone from an appliance store trying to up sell the extended service plan. Sure it would be nice to be able to return my cell phone even if I dropped it in the toilet, but I usually balk at the additional cost and try to be careful. The kid is right that accidents do happen, but how much responsibility am I willing to assume boils down to a game of chicken.
With that said, what about an ala carte menu? Let’s see, I will take the basic structure fire coverage, add on the rider for vehicle fires, pass on the water rescue, and I should get a rebate for having suppression sprinklers in my house. Total please?
This takes us back to rural Tennessee, ironically named the Volunteer state. I have seen the charred remains so let us speculate. I will generously state the dwelling was worth $50,000. That would make the $75 fee a whopping $1.50/$1000 assessed value! Oh, wait. Wasn’t our initial fire levy supposed to be $1.80/$1000? Suddenly, seventy-five bucks sounds like chump change.
Whatever your view on what happened recently to the family who watched, along with the responding fire crew, while their house was lost, the question still has not been resolved in DuPont. It remains a muddled mess between how much service is enough and what any service should cost. However, now that we are over two years past the botched levy ballot, the cynical do-over levy attempt, and the cuts to our service, an opt-in menu of service isn’t looking that bad. It may be foolishness (home owner) or callousness (fire department policy) that created the situation in the video, but in DuPont our fire service funding is still linked to ineptitude.
And that is a tragedy.
Larry Wilcox Leads the Cheers
Posted by: | CommentsI have consulted my extensive archive of Larry Wilcox council reports and happened upon a troubling trend. In the last year, since the last election actually, the comments from DuPont councilman Larry Wilcox have less and less to do with city business. Believe it or not, there was a time when Larry addressed city concerns.
No more.
The last several months have comprised our favorite council talking head going on about various side projects. His current focus is an up to the minute report of the fund raising efforts for a “War on Terror” memorial that we have been told, up until now, that was funded solely through donations. This month, Larry revealed that the city will play a part in maintaining this block of granite, which will have some sort of electrical hook ups, but the cost will be “next to nothing.” You be the judge if that statement is true.
Until now, I really didn’t have a strong opinion on this “War on Terror” memorial. Such public displays of affection hold very little difference to a public protest in my eyes. It seems to be a waste of time and energy but so long as it is not my time being wasted then live and let live. Now that I know some city dollars will be associated with this thing, my view begins to change.
Of course, we are told the cost will be minimal but what else do we expect the supporters to say. Perhaps the cost is as incidental as illuminating a flag at night. But still, a “War on Terror” memorial seems too oblique, sort of like having a “Cold War” memorial.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I offered the idea of utilizing Ross Plaza as a focal point for the city during holiday celebrations. I even offered to Mayor Jenkins, and councilmembers Westman and Grayum, all at separate meetings, the notion that a permanent memorial be placed in Ross Plaza honoring the military family for their contribution in building this city to what it is today. Notes were scribbled, heads nodded in agreement, but it went no further.
Instead, we have this sideline project with Larry Wilcox as its ad hoc spokesman. And credit should be due if they can pull this off according to their ambitious schedule, but, it just isn’t city business and it has no place being continually solicited at our public meetings. It is no different than selling Girl Scout cookies or Kiwanis gift baskets. Regardless of how worthy the cause, the council meeting is for city business, not fundraising.
Maybe in the future Councilman Wilcox could apply the same enthusiasm and ingenuity in being a champion for something that people asked for…like a skate park.
Reading Other People’s Mail
Posted by: | CommentsEarlier this month the city of DuPont hosted a Town Hall meeting to address the sign code. The city of DuPont decided not to follow through on the action set forth by Mayor Jenkins in a rare show of leadership last April. To refresh and summarize, the mayor directed her staff to go off and initiate an enforcement action regarding the advertisements littering our byways. Furthermore, the mayor appointed her wunderkind (then future) City Administrator, Dawn Masko, to head up the effort of reviewing the code and overseeing any changes. To that end, the sign code would be addressed by a group of stakeholders that included the city, business leaders via the DuPont Business Association (DBA), and the churches.
That noble effort didn’t have a snowball’s chance.
As time trudged on, it was apparent that for all the city’s talk, they lacked the walk. The enforcement action and “education” of the businesses regarding the law fizzled. Quadrant and the churches came out on the short end; Quadrant Homes forked over for dozens of new sign permits and the churches were banished to the side streets and away from the arterials. Worse, the city failed to show the fortitude to keep the enforcement up and generally did a poor job of communicating its expectations.
Some banners came down while others remained. Some permits were paid while others were not. The distances from the curb varied, as well as the hours the signs were to be displayed. The city even had more hand held signs to join the crapufacturers of Town Homes, Pageantry. Dominos and Jiffy Lube had employees hold offers like the homeless hold a scrap of cardboard.
Months passed. and those intimate with the issue were left waiting, and wanting, for that promised action. The city came up with a new step: Go to the old standby.
A town hall meeting.
I was unimpressed but not surprised. A town hall meeting offers two things I abhor in politics, local or otherwise. First, a town hall meeting offers a grand gesture that suggests that progress is being made. Second, a town hall meeting also gives the illusion that you have a voice; that you are part of the solution. Don’t be fooled by either, over the years we had town hall meetings on the mine expansion (no progress), fire service (no progress), survey and communications (no progress); what of the city’s track record suggests to you that this time it will be different?
Still, I was curious as to why the mayor flopped like an imaginary Sequalitchew salmon? The answer came from Dawn Masko. Sort of…
I wrote an email to Ms. Masko, and Roger Westman (who was announcing the meeting to his constituents) that was actually read aloud at the town hall meeting that I did not attend. I had not intended that it be read, but I appreciate that it was, for no other reason than it established me as a local soothsayer (or, incurable cynic). You decide:
—–Original Message—–
From: Mike Gorski [mailto:mgorski@realdupont.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 6:16 PM
To: Roger C. Westman; Dawn Masko
Subject: Re: Community Meeting – Sign Code
Roger and Dawn,
Not to be too much of a pain on this matter but I was wondering why
the city chose to deviate from their originally stated plan of
inviting input from stakeholders? The April council meeting set clear
direction and yet, nearly 4 months later, the city has changed
direction without explanation. To be frank, the last town hall meeting
I attend for the survey results was only attended by 17 community
members, no minutes were recorded, and no actions mentioned at that
meeting had follow up provided.
That begs the question of how many community members have to show up
to make a quorum at a town hall meeting? Isn’t it an illusion of
public input if the event is hastily advertised and poorly
communicated (bear in mind we still have no output from our
communications “blue ribbon” committee).
You had a member of the community who was motivated to help with focus
group activities and now you have chosen to take additional input from
people who may not understand the code as written and whose only input
is more emotion than fact. Furthermore, you potentially are inviting
even more data to consider that will further delay the process. You [sic]
current timeline is already unreasonably set for November 2010.
My overall concern with this approach is that you will open the door
for an “astro-turf” campaign by a stakeholder to give the appearance
of overwhelming support. For instance, a church or realtor may bring
in 15 and 10 people respectively to speak in favor of allowing their
signs while citizens who feel their signs are an unsightly distraction
will only have 5 representatives. In short, do not mistake those in
attendance as a fair representation of the community. The city has
confirmed [and] historic issues with communications.
I hope to attend but I am not sure that I can make it in time. I would
like to see in the future an avenue to provide input without
attendance. Perhaps an email can be entered into record if I state my
name and address.
For what it is worth, I would like to see addressed the “human
billboard” signs. Hoffman Hill have [sic] a weekly sign holder dancing
around directing people to the townhouses for sale. Is there a permit
for that sign? Is it covered by code? Can we please somehow restrict
that sort of signage because it something you would expect to see in
Tacoma or Spanaway.
I look forward to your timely response.
–Mike Gorski
Ms. Masko replied with a boilerplate response. A cut and paste job with a lot of blah blah referring the process and how laws are written. It did contain this nugget:
I realize that the Community Meeting is a different format that what
was originally stated, but there has been considerable feedback from
citizens, business owners, and other community stakeholders who wanted
their voices heard on this important topic and did not feel a
stakeholders group would give them an equal opportunity to
participate.
This response piqued my interest but it didn’t really address my concerns. I hit “Reply All.”
Dawn,
Thanks for the impromptu civics lesson on the purpose of a town hall
meeting.
As I mentioned before, my concern is the change in direction from what
was originally stated in April. You mentioned that there were numerous
calls and emails to the city asking for participation in the process
regarding addressing this code. I assume that you have maintained a
record of the inquiries and that the call logs and email copies are
available upon request through the standard records request process.
I am disappointed that the callers, especially the realtors, were not
directed to the DuPont Business Association. It would seem logical
that the business voice be funneled through that organization; it may
have been a good opportunity for the DBA to build credibility.
Similarly, the citizen concerns could have been routed to the citizen
representatives. Whether or not the original approach would have
worked will remain a mystery.
The news of an outside consultant also was not previously mentioned.
What is the cost of the service and is it really necessary? Is our
elected council, many of whom were in attendance at the town hall
meeting, incapable of formulating an objective opinion and crafting
the legislation?
I am also perplexed at the determination that new legislation is
required. How was that decision reached prior to the input of the town
hall meeting and citizen testimony? Did the result of the city sign
sweeps have any influence on this decision and if so, what was it?
Speaking of the enforcement, how many sign sweeps in total were
conducted? There were obvious violations that occurred after the
warning letters and sign collections. Is there a reason the
enforcement was abandoned? I understand there are cost considerations
that the mayor neglected to include in our city budget but the
citizens should not be punished for the lack of foresight. As you
probably have gathered, the city’s ineptitude in enforcing their, nay,
“our” codes are nothing short of a disgrace.
To that end, the main focus of you and your staff needs be the cost
and personnel to complete this enforcement task. This should take
place before the law is changed because it will influence the law
itself. A law without enforcement puts us in exactly the position we
are in today.
There is undoubtedly improvement on our streets of the numerous signs.
That may be attributed to the fact that it had grown so out of control
that even a minor improvement looks like progress. There are still
plenty of violators and issues to be resolved. The episode that
transpired this past weekend at the corner of Hoffman Hill and McNeil
should be intolerable to the city. A human sign waver having a
companion laying passed out on a blanket while he completed his shift.
Can you answer whether that he has a permit? Is that a violation of
any DMC or do the citizens just have to tolerate that sort of behavior?
I realize it is difficult for you to monitor the activities in town on
the weekend since you reside elsewhere. Frankly, this sort of thing
went unchecked with Bill McDonald in your position and he lives here.
However, when such things are brought to your attention I expect that
they be taken seriously.
My stand remains unchanged. The city failed to commit to enforcement
since the April mandate and has yet to produce for the citizens any of
the facts on the violations. The tracking sheet has no measured
deliverable to help council in their legislation. No output was given
on the number of violators, number of permits issued weekly, monthly;
revenue generated. (Although the city did state how much it would cost
to enforce the code with union employees).
To summarize, my concern in the change in direction is the suggestion
that DuPont has a direction on this matter. Based on the actions
between April and August, I am unconvinced. The solution has deviated
and now more layers of complexity (and expense) have been added while
enforcement was effectively cast away. That did not happen in a vacuum
and my original question can be restated as who made that call? You or
the mayor?
I do have an expectation that all my questions raised here be addressed.
Regards,
–Mike Gorski
Let’s face it. The city caved in so there had to be a reason why. Very few people cared enough to be bothered on the sign issue. It crept up on us. Besides, DuPont can be demographically bucketed into various factions who are pissed off at the city. Fireworks? Check. Dog shit? Check. Skate park? Check. Mine expansion? Check. The list sadly goes on and on. But now it appears that there is a new group we can add to that list. A group of interlopers who now are demanding a seat at the sign code negotiating table.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:25:09 -0700 [08/13/2010 11:25:09 AM PDT]
From: Dawn Masko
To: Mike Gorski
Cc: “Roger C. Westman”
Subject: RE: Community Meeting – Sign Code
Headers: Show All Headers
Good morning Mike. I apologize it has taken so long for me to respond.
It was the Mayor and my decision, made after consultation with our City
Attorney, to change the City’s course of action from a stakeholder’s
committee to a more inclusive community meeting approach. Per
attorney-client privilege, the legal advice given is confidential and
cannot be disclosed. Most of the communication from citizens wishing to
participate was done via phone calls which the City does not track nor
maintain call logs. Copies of any electronic records which we have
could be made available through a public disclosure request with the
citizen information redacted. We did receive positive feedback on the
community meeting as presenting a forum for all to have their voices
heard. We did also accept written testimony through Friday, August 6th
and included that as part of the public record as well.
While I agree that the DuPont Business Association would be a good
option for many of our local realtors to participate in it is not the
City’s normal practice to divert citizens or business owner’s comments
or complaints elsewhere. Even within our business community there are
several different sides of issues being voiced, which again was the
reason many were in favor of a community forum so they could “speak for
themselves”. The same holds true for our concerned citizens – there are
many varying opinions on the City’s sign code.
We have a consultant on contract who has worked with the City on special
projects involving planning. The sign code revision process is
complicated and time-consuming. We have one staff member in Planning at
this point who already has several major projects on his plate, as well
as being the sole person to review land use and permit applications.
The consultant is compiling the data from the community meeting,
information previously deliberated on by the Planning Agency,
surrounding communities sign codes, and other information as necessary
to bring forward a report to the City Council at the September 21st work
session. At that work session Council will be presented with options
and decision points for them to direct staff on what they would like to
see in the revised sign code – if the decision is made to do a revision.
Staff and legal counsel will then prepare the legislation based on the
Council’s clear guidance. It is not the Council’s duty to draft
legislation, rather to deliberate and vote on it.
There has been no determination by the City Council that a new sign
ordinance is required as there has been no public discussion of this
issue. However, the current and former City Attorney’s have suggested
that the City Council review the code, but I cannot discuss the nature
of any legal advice given by the City Attorney because it is governed by
the attorney-client privilege.
In regards to enforcement, the City has not abandoned its efforts. We
have conducted two sign sweeps with another one going to be happening in
the next week, sent out educational letters, and sent out letters
informing businesses of non-compliant signs. We do have this
information available for disclosure with a public records request. We
will continue to send out letters and work on enforcement, within the
legal guidelines set out by our City Attorney, as we work on the sign
code revision. Public Works will continue to conduct periodic sign
sweeps as time allows and is slated to conduct another one this week. I
also appreciate receiving information and pictures regarding signs which
may not be in compliance with our code and will follow up on those as
well. It is not the City’s intention to not enforce the current code,
but rather to enforce it in a fair, equitable and legally defensible
manner.
In regards to human sign-waivers, our current code would require them to
have a permit, which I believe they do not have. I will follow-up with
the business owner if you can please provide me with what company they
were representing. Whether to permit this type of sign activity will be
something the Council will have to discuss, but the court’s have treated
signs held by person’s in a more protective way than stationary but
temporary signs.
I do take your concerns seriously, as well as the concerns of all other
businesses and citizens. As I stated above, I will continue to work
with my staff to enforce the current code in a fair, equitable and
legally defensible manner. Thank you for your input on this important
issue. –Dawn
Attorney-client priviledge on why you changed to a town hall meeting? Attorney-client priviledge on why council has to review the code? Um, excuse me, but since this is a public matter regarding a code that applies to all of us residing and operating a business here, then aren’t we also the client? I guess not. Such secrecy leads me to conclude that the city of DuPont is being sued over this matter, otherwise, why keep the citizens in the dark? But, isn’t a lawsuit a public matter? After all, you have to file it publicly with the court.
In an odd way, I am actually in favor of the city getting sued. Perhaps a lawsuit here and a lawsuit there will awaken the mayor and council that they are way over their heads. Running a town of 8000 isn’t all parades or wreath laying. At some point some real work has to get done.
Can you sue your local government for malpractice? If not, then you should.
I listened to the audio of the town hall meeting looking for clues. From the on start it became evident that our new pissed off class of people in town are the realtors. They also came off emotionally fragile. The citizens got a lesson in how tough it is out there for real estate, and paying to permit a sign was killing their business (of course, they didn’t mention all those years their agencies were taking their 6% off of suckers put into bum mortgages; when the houses were basically selling themselves). But there was plenty of tissue to go with their hyperbole. Still, the most interesting guest speaker was also the most distinguished. Could she be the source of the change in approach, as well as the new found discretion by Ms. Masko and Mayor Jenkins?
Bear with the audio issues for the first half minute.
This was a powerful message from the professional “lobbying” arm of the realtors association in this area. For the record, I do not entirely disagree with what is being said, but I do feel that the response was heavy handed considering that no one I heard from was complaining about the real estate agency signage. In fact, the realtors were the only ones picking their “Open House” signs up on a regular basis. To that end, the realtors could be considered a model to the rest of the scofflaw churches, builders, and businesses.
What I could not escape from the comments, however, was the tone. It was as if some gubmint folks traveled down from Mount Pilot to lecture Andy, Opie, Barney, Aunt Bea, and everyone else in Mayberry on what a big mistake they were making. After all, DuPont is a town built by real estate development. Did you happen to catch the dig at “Old” DuPont? If it wasn’t for our generous overlords at Quadrant Homes we would be nothing! And, we certainly would never have a Civic Center as nice on Barksdale.
I was amused at how the realtors came armed with possible solutions (all favoring themselves). I also enjoyed how they could appreciate how we were trying to keep our town clear of clutter but we were still interfering with business. Perhaps that is why I got my civics lesson from Dawn. Maybe she got schooled by Ms. Rudolph and it just continued to roll down hill.
At the end of it all, I think we could have lived without the town hall meeting. We could certainly have lived without the stern finger wagging we got from their Government Affairs Director. We get it, commercial speech is protected by the constitution of the “United States of America.” But here is the thing, DuPont is not banning, prohibiting, or censoring the signs of realtors. In fact, you pay the same as a church or a nail salon to advertise your wares (and it is an ad). In a way, even before this bubble burst in the real estate market, Realty is a dying profession. Technology is sending the sign laying, open housing hosting, and six percent grabbing industry to the same place that the blacksmith resides: Irrelevance. They justified their existence by “marketing” properties through flowery prose and MLS comps. Now, with sites like Zillow and Estately, I can shop for a house in Georgia as easily as I can in DuPont, WA. In ten years we will be trying to remember what all the fuss was about and our grandkids will ask, “What’s an Open House?”
But today, the sign code issue is far, far from over. The city is already back peddling and the realtors have their hands on the code of their nuclear option. It is just a shame they won’t be around long enough to enjoy victory.
The Wide World of Larry
Posted by: | CommentsHere is another installment of Larry Wilcox and his bit of the council report. It reads more like a scripture from the holy book of Larry. Can anyone remember the last time Larry Wilcox had offered up anything remotely close to city business? His updates always tend toward keeping the public informed on his side projects. Or, an uninteresting data dump from some other civic meeting where he serves as representative of the city of DuPont. Who can forget last month when Councilman Wilcox informed us of the departure of the Steilacoom Historical School District superintendent?
This month Mr. Wilcox doesn’t want to appear to be egotistical. Whatever that means.
So here is 2:45 of Larry plainly speaking. No intro or outro music. Just the sweet vocal stylings of a man who loves the sound of his own voice.